Re: simple bug on nvu not fixed?

2006-03-17 Thread kamaraju kusumanchi
Adam D. Barratt wrote: kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: May I have the qa team's attention to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=341502 filed on nvu which is like 100 days old. If the original bug reporter is right, the issue (I think) is as simple as changing Build-Depends line.

Re: simple bug on nvu not fixed?

2006-03-17 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Adeodato Simó wrote: > reopen 341502 > close 341502 1.0final-1 > thanks > > * Adam D. Barratt [Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:47:57 -]: > >> The only reason the bug wasn't closed is because the bug number was >> typoed in the changelog; closing it with this message. > > Then let's do it right. :) (When

Re: simple bug on nvu not fixed?

2006-03-17 Thread Adeodato Simó
reopen 341502 close 341502 1.0final-1 thanks * Adam D. Barratt [Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:47:57 -]: > The only reason the bug wasn't closed is because the bug number was typoed > in the changelog; closing it with this message. Then let's do it right. :) (When mailing to -done, just make sure the

Re: simple bug on nvu not fixed?

2006-03-17 Thread Adam D. Barratt
kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > May I have the qa team's attention to > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=341502 > > filed on nvu which is like 100 days old. If the original bug reporter > is right, the issue (I think) is as simple as changing Build-Depends > line. Even otherwise it

simple bug on nvu not fixed?

2006-03-16 Thread kamaraju kusumanchi
May I have the qa team's attention to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=341502 filed on nvu which is like 100 days old. If the original bug reporter is right, the issue (I think) is as simple as changing Build-Depends line. Even otherwise it is as simple as giving some clarific